We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable. To have disagreements while respecting human beings on the other side. Earlier today over thirty people were arrested at one rally. And then tonight, as violence broke out, the rally was canceled all together. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands. But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.

But all you've heard this weekend in the media, and especially from the Trump bootlickers in the blogosphere, is that Ted Cruz is siding with Black Lives Matter, MorOn.org, George Soro$, et al., in an effort to attack Donald Trump.

That is not an indictment of Donald Trump for what lawless protesters did in Chicago. It is an indictment of Trump for encouraging rogue behavior, which inevitably begets more rogue behavior and perversely enables thugs to portray their thuggery as justifiable retaliation.

Conservatives are champions of vigorous debate within the bounds of civil discourse. As conservative commentators who have been threatened, shouted down, censored, banned from speaking, and full-time demagogued will tell you, the point is not just to get one’s message across; it is the principle that the message is entitled to be heard even if it is unpopular. That is why we do not stoop to thug tactics or urge that the Left — with its legacy of laundering one-time terrorists into “social justice” activists — deserves an eye-for-an-eye. The law of the jungle is not the rule of law that we advocate. Civil society has to be civil society.

Even as a Cruz supporter, I think maybe he could have phrased the criticism of the Trump campaign a little differently. No, Cruz was not blaming Trump for the violence, but the Trump-bootlickers have taken Cruz's statement out of context similar to the way that the Soro$ funded Media Mutters for America does when it tries to silence conservative talk show or TV hosts.

But, at the same time, Cruz (and McCarthy) has a point. When you're out encouraging violence against protesters, when media people are assaulted at your rallies, there's a certain element that is attracted to that. From what I've seen in almost 15 years of counter-protesting the Left in the streets of San Francisco and Marin County, as well as blogging, is that the Left always seeks a way to antagonize and provoke anyone on our side to get a reaction. When they do, they get their friends in the media over and scream "Look what the mean old right-winger did to me!" So I'm sure the Soro$ goons went for the sake of thinking, say, along the lines of "maybe we can get some of those rednecks at Trump's rally to hit us, maybe one of them will use the n-word, since he won't condemn David Duke." That's the way the Leftist goons operate.

Which brings me to Michelle Fields and the websites founded by the late Andrew Breitbart.

“Today I informed the management at Breitbart News of my immediate resignation,” Fields said in a statement to BuzzFeed early Monday. “I do not believe Breitbart News has adequately stood by me during the events of the past week and because of that I believe it is now best for us to part ways.”

Breitbart, which was founded in 2007 by the late outspoken conservative Andrew Breitbart, has been accused of having a pro-Trump bias since the billionaire businessman launched his campaign.

“Andrew’s life mission has been betrayed,” Shapiro wrote. “Indeed, Breitbart News, under the chairmanship of Steve Bannon, has put a stake through the heart of Andrew’s legacy. In my opinion, Steve Bannon is a bully, and has sold out Andrew’s mission in order to back another bully, Donald Trump; he has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda, to the extent that he abandoned and undercut his own reporter, Breitbart News’ Michelle Fields, in order to protect Trump’s bully campaign manager."

It isn't just Breitbart News, other conservative new media sites have become nothing but propaganda outlets for Trump. I can't read their work anymore, many of them I've had the utmost respect for, because of their attacks on Fields as someone who "Fudged" the assault story, or attacking another great writer, Katie Pavlich, or the childish attacks on Cruz "eating his boogers." Really? This is what "conservative" punditry has become? Promoting personalities instead of principles?

Anyone who saw Andrew Breitbart knows he would not have stood by as one of his reporters was bullied or assaulted.

In fact, he made it clear back in 2011 what he thought about Donald Trump.

Sunday, March 06, 2016

Somewhere in Heaven right now, there is a great reunion of a great couple (NY Times).

Nancy Reagan, the influential and stylish wife of the 40th president of the United States who unabashedly put Ronald Reagan at the center of her life but became a political figure in her own right, died on Sunday at her home in Los Angeles. She was 94.

The cause was congestive heart failure, according to a statement from Joanne Drake, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Reagan.

Mrs. Reagan was a fierce guardian of her husband’s image, sometimes at the expense of her own, and during Mr. Reagan’s improbable climb from a Hollywood acting career to the governorship of California and ultimately the White House, she was a trusted adviser.

“Without Nancy, there would have been no Governor Reagan, no President Reagan,” said Michael K. Deaver, the longtime aide and close friend of the Reagans who died in 2007.

If you look at these photos, and done any study of the Reagans, you can easily tell that there was nothing Hollywood about their relationship. It was real. Reagan had just been divorced from actress Jane Wyman) only a couple of years before meeting Nancy Davis, at the request of a mutual friend after her name appeared on a list of alleged communist sympathizers. As then-President of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan found out another actress with the same name was confused for his future wife, thus clearing her, but she wished to meet with him to discuss the matter.

There were two women influential to Ronald Reagan. The first was his mother, Nelle, whose faith instilled in him the belief that "all things were part of God's Plan, even the most disheartening setbacks, and in the end, everything worked out for the best." Then there was Nancy, the gift God gave him after the heartbreak of divorce, whose love, devotion and adoration helped pave the way for him to fulfill God's will in his life. Reagan wrote in his autobiography, An American Life:

If ever God gave me evidence that He had a plan for me, it was the night He brought Nancy into my life. ...Sometimes, I think my life really began when I met Nancy.

That feeling was mutual, even as she had to endure what her husband wished he could spare her of, the heartache of his decline from Alzheimer's disease and the care he required. In Craig Shirley's recent book on the last years of Ronald Reagan, Last Act, the story is told of how, two days before the 40th President passed away in 2004, Nancy broke down in the arms of her daughter Patti, saying "Nothing is ever going to be okay without him."

On a personal note, I'll always remember the day the Reagans came to the town where I grew up, Harlingen, TX (near the Texas/Mexico border), in September 1980 for a campaign stop. I was in the sixth grade at the time and my mother made her first foray into politics that summer by volunteering for the local Republican party to help elect Ronald Reagan. It was a school day, and she and a longtime family friend were discussing how they thought about standing along the route the Reagans would take to their campaign appearance. So, Mom called the school I was at, got me out for a couple of hours, and we actually saw their car stop across the street for kids at a Catholic school. Waving toward the limo, I then caught a glimpse of Mrs. Reagan on the inside waving towards us.

RIP Nancy! America misses you both, and we could sure use the leadership, class, and optimism once again that you and President Reagan brought our nation.

Friday, March 04, 2016

Donald Trump (aka Sideshow Bob) has come under attacks for an appearance on CNN this past Sunday with Jake Tapper, where he would not disavov an endorsement by the Ku Klux Klan or David Duke, acting as if he didn't know who Duke was, even though he had previously denounced Duke earlier.

This whole mess is Trump's creation, by acting he never knew of Duke when evidence shows the opposite in his previous denunciations. But the damage was done, as Trump's misstep fits into the liberal Democrat/media narrative of tar and feathering any Republican, or opponent of liberalism as being a bigot.

Despite Trump's mishandling of the Duke/KKK bruhaha, what is missed by the media is how the Klan was a product of Democrat reaction to Republican legislatures after Reconstruction, the era after the Civil War.

But for the all the reaction towards Donald Trump, will anyone pay attention to Bill and Hillary Clinton praising a former Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan who led the filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

In the early 1940s, a politically ambitious butcher from West Virginia named Bob Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. After Byrd had collected the $10 joining fee and $3 charge for a robe and hood from every applicant, the "Grand Dragon" for the mid-Atlantic states came down to tiny Crab Orchard, W.Va., to officially organize the chapter.

As Byrd recalls now, the Klan official, Joel L. Baskin of Arlington, Va., was so impressed with the young Byrd's organizational skills that he urged him to go into politics. "The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation," Baskin said.

"They mention that he once had a fleeting association with the Klu Klux Klan, and what does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn't have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that's what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There certainly are no perfect politicians."

Here's Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democrat nominee, honoring her "friend and mentor" Byrd, with clip of the former Senator/Kleagle talking in 2001 about "white niggers."

Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants. He calls for the use of torture. He calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit First Amendment freedom of the press.

This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.

Here’s what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University.

He’s playing the members of the American public for suckers. He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president and his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

Interesting that Mittens should end his speech like he started it, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan.

Back in 1964, just days before the presidential election — which, incidentally, we lost — Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America, saying that it was a time for choosing. He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles, dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all. And the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path.

Well Mr. Romney, you sir are no Ronald Reagan. Not only that, if the 40th President were still alive you wouldn't even worthy of shining his shoes. It was over 20 years ago that "Flip Romney" did everything he could in liberal Massachusetts to distance himself from The Gipper.

That's just how he earned the name "Flip Romney." He was against Reagan then for him when it was politically convenient, just like he was pro-Donald Trump when it could help him.

“I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described in his speech today.”

Who's next? Bob Dole? Maybe after he takes a few Viagra.

Now tonight comes word that Romney is strategerizing how to stop Trump, even if it goes to the convention (CNN).

Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney's inner circle says.

The 2012 GOP nominee's advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising.

"It sounds like the plan is to lock the convention," said the source.

Romney is focused on suppressing Trump's delegate count to prevent him from accumulating the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination.

But implicit in Romney's request to his team to explore the possibility of a convention fight is his willingness to step in and carry the party's banner into the fall general election as the Republican nominee. Another name these sources mentioned was House Speaker Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate in 2012.

So, my question to all those who don't want Donald Trump as the nominee, is who do you want to endorse? Flipper Mitt didn't endorse today. Lindsey Grahamnesty went from joking about murdering Ted Cruz to saying they might have to get behind him. But Lindsey is a special case. Unless John McLame tells him what to do, Lindsey is so confused he doesn't know whether to stand up or sit down to go to the bathroom.

This past Tuesday was Super Tuesday where I live now, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. True to my endorsement back on November 24, 2015, I proudly cast my vote in the GOP primary for the most conservative candidate for President I've had the opportunity to vote for, Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Of all the remaining candidates, Ted Cruz is the closest and best opportunity to defeat Donald Trump and fundamentally restore the United States of America. I know a lot of people who have a close friendship with Marco Rubio and are supporting him. But this isn't about personalities. If it wasn't Cruz, and Rand Paul was on Trump's heels, I'd support Rand Paul (or Rick Perry).

So, my question to Mittens Romney, John McLame, and the rest of the anti-Trump chorus, is this. Is this opposition to Trump based on what's best for the country, or what's best for the GOP establishment? If not, then may I suggest if you're opposed to Trump, then endorse the only real outsider and conservative still in the race, Ted Cruz, or I kindly ask you to shut the hell up!

Because if you're not willing to endorse Cruz, you're just doing this for the GOP establishment to keep it's lock on power, and you're just as unpatriotic as liberal Democrats, because you don't put what is best for the country before your own designs on power.